There is a single balance that governs the success of human interaction, whether between lovers, brothers, or nations. It is the balance between the one and the many. In far too many fora, narcissism sits center stage, and this insidious trend has been adopted as a casus belli by both the Salafists and the Neo-cons. Ironyyyyyyyyy.
Everything is relative. To present-day Americans, the 1950's serve as the archetype of bucolic and wholesome community. It is remembered as a time of monogamy, asexual clothing, and domestic bliss. However, to Sayid Qutb, an Egyptian intellectual, that very same community reeked of materialism, lust, depravity, and instant gratification.
As liberalism failed in the United States, leading to an explosion of the very ills it claimed to aim to eradicate, the neo-cons reverted to Leo Strauss' endorsement of a popular myth. This was hardly a new idea, but it had never been so organized. When liberalism's navel gazing and reflexive guilt produced riots, the neo-cons were redeemed.
The popular myth would hold that America was besieged on all sides by hostile powers. Many of these threats were invisible or classified, but they were there. Furthermore, the threats were not driven by national or economic or political motivation, but by evil.
The neo-cons co-opted this notion of good versus evil to the point where they castigated their critics as moral relativists incapable of acknowledging right and wrong. (They were not wholly wrong in this castigation.)
The Jihadis, inspired by Qutb, perceived a similar moral decay in their societies, as conservative as those societies were from the American perspective. The jihadis, like the neo-cons, invested in a timeworn strategy of recreating an imagined golden age of unity and singularity of purpose by stoking fear of external evil forces which were consolidating as the homeland was diverted by decadence. Like the neo-cons' critique of liberalism, there is a hefty grain of truth to the jihadis' critique of kleptocratic right-wing Muslim tyrannies.
The neo-cons and the jihadis both wanted the same thing for their respective societies, but their respective societies ignored them. Until they found each other. They met in Afghanistan. They worked hand in glove there against the Soviets, and when it was all over the jihadis absurdly boasted that they had caused the collapse of the biggest empire in the history of the world, and the neo-cons absurdly boasted the same thing.
The next ten years were spent on lobbying their constituents by the neo-cons and the jihadis. The neo-cons used the Project for the New American Century. The jihadis used Kalashnikovs and car bombs. To each his own. Their constituencies, however, did not seem intrigued by their vision. And then, 9/11.
9/11 and the 18 months subsequent immeasurably inflated the power of the jihadis and the neo-cons; both were vindicated in the eyes of their people.
The balance between the one and the many enters here. The neo-cons and the jihadis each argue for unity of purpose against a satanic enemy. They castigate their societies for failing to exalt the many above the one. The problem, of course, is that neither one of them represent the many. They are both quite unpopular where they live.
So why are they both getting their way? Well, it strikes me that the two biggest threats to peace for the foreseeable future are American antipathy and Muslim antipathy. Where are the mass protests over the neo-cons' use of torture? Where are the mass protests over the jihadis' use of beheading?
America and the Muslim world are tied together and are being driven off a cliff by small factions within their societies. These deranged drivers do not represent more than a sliver of the population. Is that good news or bad news?
Everything is relative. To present-day Americans, the 1950's serve as the archetype of bucolic and wholesome community. It is remembered as a time of monogamy, asexual clothing, and domestic bliss. However, to Sayid Qutb, an Egyptian intellectual, that very same community reeked of materialism, lust, depravity, and instant gratification.
As liberalism failed in the United States, leading to an explosion of the very ills it claimed to aim to eradicate, the neo-cons reverted to Leo Strauss' endorsement of a popular myth. This was hardly a new idea, but it had never been so organized. When liberalism's navel gazing and reflexive guilt produced riots, the neo-cons were redeemed.
The popular myth would hold that America was besieged on all sides by hostile powers. Many of these threats were invisible or classified, but they were there. Furthermore, the threats were not driven by national or economic or political motivation, but by evil.
The neo-cons co-opted this notion of good versus evil to the point where they castigated their critics as moral relativists incapable of acknowledging right and wrong. (They were not wholly wrong in this castigation.)
The Jihadis, inspired by Qutb, perceived a similar moral decay in their societies, as conservative as those societies were from the American perspective. The jihadis, like the neo-cons, invested in a timeworn strategy of recreating an imagined golden age of unity and singularity of purpose by stoking fear of external evil forces which were consolidating as the homeland was diverted by decadence. Like the neo-cons' critique of liberalism, there is a hefty grain of truth to the jihadis' critique of kleptocratic right-wing Muslim tyrannies.
The neo-cons and the jihadis both wanted the same thing for their respective societies, but their respective societies ignored them. Until they found each other. They met in Afghanistan. They worked hand in glove there against the Soviets, and when it was all over the jihadis absurdly boasted that they had caused the collapse of the biggest empire in the history of the world, and the neo-cons absurdly boasted the same thing.
The next ten years were spent on lobbying their constituents by the neo-cons and the jihadis. The neo-cons used the Project for the New American Century. The jihadis used Kalashnikovs and car bombs. To each his own. Their constituencies, however, did not seem intrigued by their vision. And then, 9/11.
9/11 and the 18 months subsequent immeasurably inflated the power of the jihadis and the neo-cons; both were vindicated in the eyes of their people.
The balance between the one and the many enters here. The neo-cons and the jihadis each argue for unity of purpose against a satanic enemy. They castigate their societies for failing to exalt the many above the one. The problem, of course, is that neither one of them represent the many. They are both quite unpopular where they live.
So why are they both getting their way? Well, it strikes me that the two biggest threats to peace for the foreseeable future are American antipathy and Muslim antipathy. Where are the mass protests over the neo-cons' use of torture? Where are the mass protests over the jihadis' use of beheading?
America and the Muslim world are tied together and are being driven off a cliff by small factions within their societies. These deranged drivers do not represent more than a sliver of the population. Is that good news or bad news?
No comments:
Post a Comment